4.2 Article

Microbiome dynamics of two differentially resilient corals

期刊

DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS
卷 131, 期 3, 页码 213-226

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/dao03289

关键词

Diploria; Pseudodiploria; Microbiota; Climate change; Acidification

资金

  1. Protect Our Reefs Grant Program [POR-2012-6]
  2. MBRS-RISE program at Florida International University
  3. [12497]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coral bleaching and disease are 2 common occurrences that are contributing to global coral cover decline. Understanding the interactions between the coral animal and its microbial associates, and how they may change in the presence of stressors such as warming and acidification, is a crucial component to understanding both susceptibility and resistance to disease and bleaching. The coral Diploria labyrinthiformis has been shown to be more disease resistant than its relative Pseudodiploria strigosa, providing an ideal study system for disease resistance. In this study, we examined the bacterial communities of these 2 coral species on the Florida Reef tract every 6 mo for 18 mo (in situ sampling), and under experimental (laboratory) thermal and pH manipulation. The in situ sampling encompassed wide fluctuations in temperature, including an anomalously warm summer period. The laboratory experiments involved exposure to both increased temperature (31 degrees C) and lowered pH (7.7). The in situ bacterial communities of both coral species were highly similar in the winter, but diverged during summer, with the D. labyrinthiformis bacterial community being more stable than that of P. strigosa. Differences in the bacterial community between the 2 coral species included 29 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) that were specific to D. labyrinthiformis in all seasons, while only 2 OTUs were specific to P. strigosa. The comparative stability of the D. labyrinthiformis microbiome, in addition to harboring a more specific microbiome, may be a key component of the relative disease resistance of this coral.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据